Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on December 2, 2015.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on December 28, 2015. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Accordingly, the Panel determines in accordance with paragraph 15 of the Rules that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant, Accenture Global Services Limited, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: December 30, 2015...
2016-01-08 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on February 22, 2016.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on February 29, 2016. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Names, ; ; ; and , be transferred to the Complainant.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: March 10, 2016...
2016-03-21 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 13, 2017.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on March 10, 2017. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Date: March 17, 2017...
2017-03-27 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 23, 2017.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on March 8, 2017. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Date: March 22, 2017...
2017-03-27 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
DECISÃO DO PAINEL ADMINISTRATIVO
AB Electrolux v. J. C. R. P.
Caso No. DBR2017-0002
1. As Partes
A Reclamante é AB Electrolux de Estocolmo, Suécia, representada por SILKA Law AB, Suécia.
O Reclamado é J. C. R. P. de Mesquita, Brasil.
2. O Nome de Domínio e a Unidade de Registro
O nome de domínio em disputa é , o qual está registrado perante o NIC.br.
3. ...
2017-03-22 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
DECISÃO DO PAINEL ADMINISTRATIVO
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. G. H. R. P.
Caso No. DBR2017-0014
1. As Partes
A Reclamante é Honda Motor Co., Ltd., de Tóquio, Japão, representada por Kasznar Leonardos Advogados, Brasil.
O Reclamado é G. H. R. P., de São Paulo, Brasil.
2. O Nome de Domínio e a Unidade de Registro
O nome de domínio em disputa é , registrado perante o NIC.br.
3. ...
2017-11-30 - Case Details
Selon la jurisprudence suisse, l’enregistrement d’un nom de domaine comportant la marque d’un tiers peut − indépendamment de tout usage – être constitutif d’un acte de concurrence déloyale lorsque cela a pour effet d’exploiter la renommée de cette marque ou lorsque cet enregistrement n’est justifié par aucun intérêt digne de protection et a visiblement lieu au détriment d’un tiers (cf. l’arrêt du Tribunal de commerce de Zurich du 18 décembre 2001, ZR 101/2002, No 51, p. 190 ss.; cf. également AdunoKaution AG, Aduno Finance AG contre SC, Swiss Caution SA,
Litige OMPI No. ...Il convient également de noter que, afin d’affirmer une violation de la LCD, il n’est pas nécessaire de prouver que le défendeur a agi de mauvaise foi (cf. l’arrêt du Tribunal fédéral ATF 126 III 239, p. 247).
Dans le cas d’espèce, il ne fait aucun doute que le nom de domaine enregistré par le Défendeur peut donner l’impression auprès du public d’être lié à la marque LA COMPAGNIE DU LIT OSEZ NOUS DEMANDER LA LUNE !” ...
2017-11-28 - Case Details
Numerous UDRP decisions have held that a domain name registrant's attempt to impersonate a brand owner for fraudulent activities does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services (see, for example: Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; eBay Inc. v. ebayMoving / Izik Apo,
WIPO Case No. ...A domain registrant's attempt to impersonate a brand owner for fraudulent activities does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services (see Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", supra; eBay Inc. v. ebayMoving / Izik Apo, supra).
The Panel holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
...
2017-11-06 - Case Details
Domain Admin, c/o ID#10760 Privacy Protection Service Inc. d/b/a Privacyprotect.org / P de Ree
Case No. D2017-1260
1. The Parties
Complainant is Golden Goose S.P.A. of Milan, Italy, represented by Scarpellini Naj-Oleari & Associati, Italy.
Respondent is Domain Admin, c/o ID#10760 Privacy Protection Service Inc. d/b/a Privacyprotect.org of Queensland, Australia / P de Ree of Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...
2017-08-18 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
DECISÃO DO PAINEL ADMINISTRATIVO
Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. J. E. B. P.
Caso No. DBR2017-0017
1. As Partes
A Reclamante é Aktiebolaget Electrolux de Estocolmo, Suécia, representada por SILKA Law AB, Suécia.
O Reclamado é J. E. B. P. de Jundiaí, Brasil.
2. O Nome de Domínio e a Unidade de Registro
O nome de domínio em disputa é , que está registrado perante o NIC.br.
3. ...
2018-01-10 - Case Details
No. 5,338,445 for the word mark ULTIUS, for use in connection with, inter alia, “[p]roviding a web site featuring temporary use of non-downloadable software for connecting consumers and contracted freelance writers” (first used in commerce on January 1, 2017; registered on November 21, 2017); and 5,338,446 for a design mark that prominently features the text ULTIUS, for use in connection with, inter alia, “[p]roviding a web site featuring temporary use of non-downloadable software for connecting consumers and contracted freelance writers” (first used in commerce on January 1, 2017; registered on November 21, 2017). ...
2018-07-03 - Case Details
The disputed domain name differs from the registered LOMAR trademark by the additional descriptive word
“shiping” with a missing “-p” letter which seems to be an intentional typo. The additional word “shiping” does
not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity under the f irst element.
...As the Complainants submit, it is inconceivable that the Respondent would not have known of the
Complainants’ mark giving that:
- the disputed domain name differs from the Complainants’ website “www.lomarshipping.com” with simple
omission of the “-p” letter which is an intentional typo;
- the use of the Complainants’ trademark and logo within the disputed domain name;
- the striking similarity of the photos on the Respondent’s website to that of the Complainants;
- the use of the Complainants’ logo and trademarks;
- the use of telephone number and address in UK, which is identical with the Complainants’ address.
...
2025-05-12 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s SHIPCO name and service mark, differing only by the inclusion of an additional letters “i” and “p” in the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SHIPCO TRANSPORT service mark, because the name “Shipco” is the dominant and distinctive element of the SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark and the second element in the mark is descriptive of the Complainant’s field of commercial activity.
This Panel agrees with the Complainant’s submission that the additional letters “i” and “p” are likely to be overlooked in any quick reading of the disputed domain name.
In the circumstances of this Complaint, the generic Top-Level Domain extension “.com” in the disputed domain name may be ignored for the purposes of these comparisons.
...
2018-12-20 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
DECISÃO DO PAINEL ADMINISTRATIVO
Microsoft Corporation / Mojang Synergies AB v. M. d. P. S.
Caso No. DBR2018-0014
1. As Partes
As Reclamantes são Microsoft Corporation de Redmond, Washington, Estados Unidos da América e Mojang Synergies AB de Estocolmo, Suécia, representadas por Soerensen Garcia Advogados Associados, Brasil.
A Reclamada é M. d. P. S. de Mogi das Cruzes, Brasil.
2. Os Nomes de Domínio e a Unidade de Registro
Os nomes de domínio em disputa são e , os quais estão registrados perante o NIC.br.
3. ...
2019-01-04 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the Respondent is engaged in the unauthorized use of the Complainant’s registered trademark as the disputed domain name completely incorporates Complainant’s CARVANA trademarks and simply adds a letter “p” to the said CARVANA trademarks. This addition of a single letter does not obviate confusion. Actually, the Respondent registered an insignificant version of the Complainant’s CARVANA trademarks to misdirect internet users who make a typographical error.
...The disputed domain name only differs from the Complainant’s trademark CARVANA through the addition of a letter “p” after “carvana”. The Complainant’s mark is nevertheless clearly recognizable and entirely contained in the disputed domain name, and consequently the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark.
...
2020-11-05 - Case Details
The Panel finds that consolidation is proper in this case. Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules states that a “[p]anel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules provides, in relevant part, that “the [p]anel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”. Section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) summarizes the consensus view of UDRP panels on the consolidation of multiple respondents and provides that where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels consider whether the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and whether the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties.
...
2020-12-21 - Case Details
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if “after considering the submissions the [p]anel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the [p]anel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding”.
...
2020-02-05 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark because they consist of the entirety of
the STRIPE trademark along with the terms such as “p”, “pay” and “pro” and/or the third-party trademark
PAYPAL;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names since it is
unable to rely on any of the circumstances set out in paragraphs 4(c)(i), (ii), or (iii) of the Policy;
- due to the recognition of the Complainant’s trademark in the financial sector the Respondent likely knew of
and targeted the Complainant’s trademark through registration of the disputed domain names; and
- the establishment of MX (mail exchange) records for the disputed domain names indicates that the
Respondent has made preparations to generate potentially spam or fraudulent phishing emails using the
disputed domain names, which is additional indication of bad faith.
...The addition of other terms, here “pro”, and “pay”, and an additional letter “p” either after the trademark or in
between the trademark and other added terms, as well as the third-party mark PAYPAL does not prevent a
finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s mark. ...
2025-11-05 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Teollisuuden Voima OY v Jarno P. Vastamäki
Case No. D2001-0321
1. The Parties
Complainant is Teollisuuden Voima OY, Töölönkatu 4, FIN, 00100 Helsinki, Finland represented by Georg R. ...Souter, Esq., Lammi & Partners OY, attorney, P.O.Box 1214, FIN-00100 Helsinki, Finland, hereinafter the "Complainant".
Respondent is Jarno P. Vastamäki, Länsitorikatu 3 A 1, FIN-35800 Mänttä, Finland,
hereinafter the "Respondent".
2. Domain Names and Registrar
The domain names in dispute are and .
...
2001-05-07 - Case Details
The Complainant is represented by: Amy B. Goldsmith, Esq. and Marc P. Misthal, Esq., Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C., 270 Madison Ave., New York, New York 10016, U.S.A.
...And finally, the Panel does not believe a businessman who endeavors to sell goods from watches to children's videos can be in any doubt that when he registers four (4) domain name versions of the illustrious automobile trademark "Ferrari", he is infringing others' trademark rights (Response p. 4).
The specific bad faith registration provisions of the Policy are perhaps not applicable, but they are illustrative and not exhaustive (Pharmacia & Upjohn Company v. ...
2001-02-22 - Case Details